RECONSIDERING STATIVE PREDICATIONS, THEIR BEHAVIOUR

RECONSIDERING STATIVE PREDICATIONS, THEIR BEHAVIOUR AND
CHARACTERISTICS
Luís Filipe Cunha
Concerning their aspectual profile, stative predications do not form an unvarying
category. Conversely, they constitute a complex and heterogeneous aspectual class. In
fact, the situations that traditionally are labelled “states” exhibit a great variability in
their linguistic behaviour patterns, which reveal significant dissimilarities at their
internal temporal structure. This is particularly noteworthy in languages like
Portuguese, in which the distinction between ser (‘be’) and estar (‘be’) plays an
important role in the aspectual interpretation of sentences.
The main goal of this paper will be, therefore, to provide a reclassification for
the different kinds of stative predications, trying to establish linguistic criteria that make
possible to justify the validity of such distinctions.
In this way, we will depart from a discussion of the well-known criteria
suggested by Dowty (1979) in order to distinguish states from events, showing that
some of them are clearly inadequate for this purpose.
In order to solve this problem, we will follow the hypothesis that there are
several subclasses of statives, characterized by specific aspectual properties, which
explain the above-mentioned differences. We will make use, in particular, of the
distinctions between individual-level and stage-level predicates (cf. Carlson (1977),
Chierchia (1995), Kratzer (1995) and between phase and non-phase states (cf. Cunha
(1998), (2004)).
Finally, we will suggest some criteria that can really describe the opposition that
arises between states and events, justifying the maintenance of this distinction in the
framework of the aspectual classes of predicates description.
1. Dowty criteria and the Heterogeneity of Stative Predications
Dowty’s analysis was one of the first efforts to establish purely linguistic criteria
in order to distinguish states from the other aspectual classes of situations. Departing
from ideas developed, among others, by Vendler (1967), Dowty presents a
categorization of eventualities predominantly based on differences at the linguistic
behaviour of the predications supporting them.
Dowty suggests the following “tests” in order to distinguish states from events:1
A. Only non-statives are unproblematically compatible with the Progressive (cf. (1)
vs. (2)-(4)):
(1) * O João está a ser alto. (state)
‘The João ESTARPres to SER tall’
‘João is being tall’
(2) O João está a dançar. (process)
‘The João ESTARPres to dance’
‘João is dancing’
(3) O João está a comer a maçã. (culminated process)
‘The João ESTARPres to eat the apple’
‘João is eating the apple’
(4) O João está a abrir a porta. (culmination)
‘The João ESTARPres to open the door’
‘João is opening the door’
B. In “normal” contexts, only non-statives require a frequentative or a habitual
reading with the simple present tense (the Presente do Indicativo, in languages
like Portuguese); statives, under the same conditions, receive preferentially a
“real present” interpretation (cf. (5) vs. (6)-(8)):
1
We will use here the terminology proposed by Moens (1987) who classifies eventualities into states,
processes, culminated processes, culminations and points.
(5) O João é alto neste momento / * habitualmente. (state)
‘The João SERPres tall in this moment / habitually’
'João is tall right now / habitually'
(6) O João dança # neste momento / habitualmente. (process)
‘The João dancePres in this moment / habitually’
'João dances right now / habitually'
(7) O João come a maçã # neste momento / habitualmente. (culminated process)
‘The João eatPres the apple in this moment / habitually’
'João eats the apple right now / habitually'
(8) O João abre a porta # neste momento / habitualmente. (culmination)
‘The João openPres the door in this moment / habitually’
'João opens the door right now / habitually'
C. Only non-statives can occur as imperatives (cf. (9) vs. (10)-(12)):
(9) * João, sê alto! (state)
‘João, SERImper tall!’
'João, be tall!'
(10) João, dança! (process)
‘João, danceImper!’
'João, dance!'
(11) João, come a maçã! (culminated process)
‘João, eatImper the apple!’
'João, eat the apple!'
(12) João, abre a porta! (culmination)
‘João, openImper the door!’
'João, open the door!'
D. Only non-statives occur as complements of agentive verbs like forçar ('force') or
persuadir ('persuade') (cf. (13) vs. (14)-(16)):
(13) * O João persuadiu o irmão a ser alto. (state)
‘The João persuadePPerf the brother to SER tall’
'João persuaded his brother to be tall'
(14) O professor proibiu o João de dançar. (process)
‘The teacher forbidPPerf the João from dance’
'His teacher forbade John from dancing'
(15) A mãe forçou o João a comer a maçã. (culminated process)
‘The mother forcePPerf the João to eat the apple’
'His mother forced João to eat the apple'
(16) Os polícias obrigaram o João a abrir a porta. (culmination)
‘The policemen forcePPerf the João to open the door’
'The policemen forced João to open the door'
E. Only non-statives co-occur with agentive adverbials like deliberadamente
('deliberately') or voluntariamente ('voluntarily') (cf. (17) vs. (18)-(20)):
(17) * O João foi alto voluntariamente. (state)
‘The João SERPPerf tall voluntarily’
'João was tall voluntarily'
(18) O João dançou deliberadamente. (process)
‘The João dancePPerf deliberately’
'João danced deliberately'
(19) O João comeu a maçã propositadamente. (culminated process)
‘The João eatPPerf the apple purposely’
'João ate the apple purposely'
(20) O João abriu a porta intencionalmente. (culmination)
‘The João openPPerf the door intentionally’
'João opened the door intentionally'
F. Only non-statives appear in pseudo-cleft sentences of the form "O que X fez
foi..." ('“What X did was...”') (cf. (21) vs. (22)-(24)):
(21) * O que o João fez foi ser alto. (state)
‘The what the João doPPerf SERPPerf SER tall’
'What João did was be tall'
(22) O que o João fez foi dançar. (process)
‘The what the João doPPerf SERPPerf dance’
'What João did was dance'
(23) O que o João fez foi comer a maçã. (culminated process)
‘The what the João doPPerf SERPPerf eat the apple’
'What João did was eat the apple'
(24) O que o João fez foi abrir a porta. (culmination)
‘The what the João doPPerf SERPPerf open the door’
'What João did was open the door'
If we look more carefully at the above-mentioned “tests”, however, we will
conclude that most of them are not able to provide an adequate distinction between
events and states. In fact, if there are many statives that behave in accord with Dowty’s
predictions, others exist that cannot be subsumed under these criteria. Thus, states like
the one presented in (25)-(30) not only occur unproblematically in the Progressive (cf.
(25)) but can also be found in agentive contexts like those in (26)-(29) and may be
interpreted habitually (cf. (30), although they are also perfectly compatible with a “real
present” reading:2
(25) O João está a ser amável.
‘The João ESTARPres to SER kind’
‘João is being kind’
(26) João, sê amável!
‘João, SERImper kind!’
‘João, be kind!’
(27) A sua namorada pediu ao João para ser amável.
‘The his girlfriend askPPerf to the João to SER kind’
‘His girlfriend asked João to be kind’
(28) O João foi deliberadamente amável com a sua namorada.
‘The João SERPPerf deliberately kind to the his girlfriend’
‘João was deliberately kind to his girlfriend’
(29) O que o João fez foi ser amável.
‘The what the João doPPerf SERPPerf SER kind’
‘What João did was be kind’
2
As a consequence, Dowty (1979) is lead to consider the (in)existence of changes of state as the unique
criterion effectively suitable to distinguish states from all the other classes of situations.
(30) O João é amável neste momento / habitualmente.
‘The João SERPres kind in this moment / habitually’
‘João is kind right now / habitually’
These observations forced Dowty to reanalyse his characterisation of stative
predications, leading him to a redefinition of the aspectual category of states.
Taking into account that, as Dowty himself refers, the main function of the
Progressive is to assert the truth of a given eventuality – whose non-progressive form
can only be ascribed to an interval – in an unique moment of time, statives like the one
referred to in (25)-(30) must be true with respect to intervals and not at instants: if their
truth-value were evaluated at each of the instants that they occupy, the Progressive
would be automatically ruled out since its use would be completely irrelevant (i.e., the
progressive and non-progressive forms would describe one and the same thing: the truth
of the situation with respect to a moment of time). In this view, we can say that,
concerning their internal temporal constitution, those states are very close to processes
in that the differences distinguishing these two kinds of eventualities seem to be very
weak in such contexts (cf. section 3).
On the other hand, Dowty re-evaluates the status of his own “tests” for stativity,
taking into account that, in any way, all aspectual classes (including states) can behave
agentively or non-agentively. Such observations determine a reorganization of his
classification for aspectual entities, as we can see in the systematisation he proposes (cf.
Dowty (1979), pp. 184). The compatibility of stative predications with clearly agentive
constructions can be confirmed by examples like (26)-(29) above.
Another important proposal made by Dowty, to which we will return in section
2, respects the extension of the opposition between individual-level and stage-level
predicates (cf. Carlson (1977) to the domain of stative predications. In this way, Dowty
distinguishes the states that predicate directly over objects, that is, states that describe
longer or shorter intervals of time at which a given individual holds, from states that
predicate over stages, that is, states that are restricted to slices of time at which some
portion of a given individual holds. In the course of their existence, individuals can
occupy a number of distinguishable intervals that we will call stages.
In light of some of these problems, Dowty (1979) suggests a reformulation for
the classification of the stative predications. In fact, he recognises the existence of three
different kinds of states: interval states, whose truth value is evaluated only with respect
to intervals of time (and never with respect to any of the instants that constitute them)3,
characterized by the compatibility with the Progressive operator; stage-level momentary
states, which, although dependent on intervals, are necessarily true at all instants
compounding them; and, finally, object-level momentary states, which predicate over
all the moments characterizing a given individual or object.
In this way, we can recognise two main criteria underlying the classification
Dowty proposes for stative predications: one predominantly related with their temporal
internal constitution, distinguishing states that are true at intervals from those that are
true at instants of time; the other having to do with the nature of the entities that are
predicated, distinguishing states that predicate directly over individuals from those that
apply only to their temporal limited portions, i.e., to their stages.
Although Dowty explicitly offers a first subclassification for statives, thus
recognising their heterogeneity, he leaves some important questions unsolved. We refer
the following:
-
What linguistic tests enable us to distinguish unquestionably the different
subclasses of states?
-
Which semantic properties determine such linguistic behaviours?
-
Given the inadequacy of most of the tests proposed by Dowty (1979) for this
purpose, how can we establish a difference between states, on the one hand, and
events, on the other?
In the following sections, we will look for some answers to these questions.
2. Individual-level vs. Stage-level States
As we have already said, the opposition between individual-level and stage-level
predicates plays an important role with regard to the classification of states and to their
linguistic behaviour. Departing from the analysis developed by Carlson (1977), Dowty
3
Note that, typically, in the most part of the formalization efforts that take temporal notions in order to
characterize aspectual classes, the evaluation of the truth value of a situation according to intervals or to
the set of instants constituting them is frequently evoked to model the distinction between processes and
states (cf. Bennett and Partee (1978), Bennett (1981)). In this sense, we can say that the subclass of
interval statives, as Dowty presents it, seems very close to this definition of processes. We will return to
these remarks, in a different perspective, in section 3.
(1979), Kratzer (1995) and Chierchia (1995), among others, study the influence of such
property in different contexts involving stative predications.
Individual-level predicates apply directly to the entities they combine with,
expressing essentially permanent or stable properties. This means that, in some way, the
characteristics associated with an individual-level predicate accompany the entities they
are attributed to along their temporal and spatial existence.
Stage-level predicates, on the other hand, establish with their accompanying
individuals an obligatorily indirect relationship, since they express only spacio-temporal
limited characteristics. Thus, we can say that they describe transitory or episodic
properties, strictly dependent on shorter or longer intervals of time.
Taking all these facts into account, Kratzer (1995) argues that stage-level
predicates must always be accompanied by an argumental position specifying a given
spatio-temporal location, contrasting with individual-level predicates, which should not
include such an argumental position in their formal representation, since, as we have
seen, they apply directly to the individuals they predicate on.4
Generally speaking, we can define a stage as a temporally well-established and
perfectly delimited “portion” of some individual. This means that a stage represents a
specified part of an entity, characterizing it at the spatio-temporal level.
Based on Kratzer and Chierchia’s proposals, we suggest the following linguistic
criteria in order to distinguish individual-level from stage-level statives in languages
like Portuguese:5
A. Only stage-level states combine freely with all kinds of durational and locating
temporal adverbials (cf. (31)-(32) vs. (33)-(34)):
(31) Ontem / no Sábado, a Maria esteve contente. (stage-level state)
‘Yesterday / on the Saturday, the Maria ESTARPPerf happy’
‘Yesterday / on Saturday, Maria was happy’
4
It is not surprising, thus, that only statives can describe individual-level predicates: being the only
eventualities that are not constituted by successive phases, they can persist indefinitely in time, in contrast
with events, which are inherently restricted by the conditions associated to their internal constitution.
Stage-level predicates, however, can be eventive or stative, given that both classes support easily an
intrinsic or extrinsic temporal delimitation.
5
Note that some of the criteria for the distinction between individual-level and stage-level predicates
developed by Chierchia (1995) and Kratzer (1995) do not apply to languages like Portuguese. It is the
case, for instance, of the there-sentences test or the bare plural in subject position test. We will, therefore,
ignore them here.
(32) A Maria teve febre durante três dias. (stage-level state)
‘The Maria havePPerf fever for three days’
‘Maria had fever for three days’
(33) * Ontem / no Sábado, a Maria foi Portuguesa. (individual-level state)
‘Yesterday / on the Saturday, the Maria SERPPerf Portuguese’
‘Yesterday / on Saturday, Maria was Portuguese’
(34) * A Maria soube latim durante três dias. (individual-level state)
‘The Maria knowPPerf latin for threee days’
‘Maria knew Latin for three days’
B. Stage-level statives co-occur, in the most part, freely with locatives, contrasting
with individual-level predicates, which show strong restrictions in those contexts
(cf. (35)-(36) vs. (37)-(38)):
(35) A Maria esteve contente na escola. (stage-level state)
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf happy in the school’
‘Maria was happy at school’
(36) A Maria teve febre em casa da avó. (stage-level state)
‘The Maria havePPerf fever in home of the grandmother’
‘Maria had fever at her grandmother’s home’
(37) * A Maria foi portuguesa na escola. (individual-level state)
‘The Maria SERPPerf Portuguese in the school’
‘Maria was Portuguese at school’
(38) * A Maria soube latim em casa da avó. (individual-level state)
‘The Maria knowPPerf Latin in home of the grandmother’
‘Maria knew Latin at her grandmother’s home’
C. Only stage-level statives may occur with punctual adverbials, leading to a
reading in which we typically obtain the inclusion of the adverbials into the time
of the situation accompanying them (cf. (39)-(40) vs. (41)-(42)):
(39) A Maria esteve contente às cinco horas (stage-level state)
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf happy at the five hours’
‘Maria was happy at five o’clock’
(40) A Maria teve febre às duas da manhã. (stage-level state)
‘The Maria havePPerf fever at the two of the morning’
‘Maria had fever at two o’clock in the morning’
(41) * A Maria foi portuguesa às cinco horas. (individual-level state)
‘The Maria SERPPerf Portuguese at the five hours’
‘Maria was Portuguese at five o’clock’
(42) * A Maria soube latim às duas da manhã. (individual-level state)
‘The Maria knowPPerf Latin at the two of the morning’
‘Maria knew Latin at two o’clock in the morning’
D. Only stage-level statives may be quantified by expressions like sempre que
(‘whenever’), todas as vezes que (‘every time’), etc. (cf. (43)-(44) vs. (45)-(46)):
(43) Sempre que está contente, a Maria canta. (stage-level state)
‘Whenever that ESTARPres happy, the Maria singPres’
‘Whenever she is happy, Maria sings’
(44) Todas as vezes que está com febre, a Maria toma uma aspirina. (stage-level
state)
‘Every the times that ESTARPres with fever, the Maria takePres an aspirin’
‘Every time she has fever, Maria takes an aspirin’
(45) * Sempre que é Portuguesa, a Maria vai a Lisboa. (individual-level state)
‘Whenever that SERPres Portuguese, the Maria goPres to Lisbon’
‘Whenever she is Portuguese, Maria goes to Lisbon’
(46) * Todas as vezes que sabe latim, a Maria traduz um texto. (individual-level
state)
‘Every the times that knowPres Latin, the Maria translatePres a text’
‘Every time she knows Latin, Maria translates a text’
The above-mentioned criteria derive fairly from the different properties defining
the two kinds of predicates under analysis: the fact that individual-level statives apply
directly to the entities they predicate on, and not to any of their spatio-temporal slices,
difficults their occurrence with structures that, in some way, imply spatio-temporal
restrictions, as locating and measuring adverbials, locatives and punctual adverbials.
Moreover, quantifying expressions like whenever or every time, which clearly quantify
over spatio-temporal limited periods, can only be combined with stage-level predicates,
excluding, as expected, individual-level ones.
If the opposition between stage-level and individual-level predicates describes
adequately the temporal contrasts just mentioned, it cannot explain satisfactorily some
configurations in which statives assume the characteristic pattern of events, that is, in
which aspectual factors play the essential role. In particular, we are talking about the cooccurrence of statives with aspectual operators that require “processuality” features at
the input level, as the Progressive or começar a (‘begin’) (cf. (47)-(48)), or their
appearance in structures exhibiting a successive reading between situations, be it in the
context of when-clauses (cf. (49)) or in linear ordered discourses (cf. (50)):
(47) A Maria está a ser simpática.
‘The Maria ESTARPres to SER nice’
‘Maria is being nice’
(48) A Maria começou a ser simpática.
‘The Maria beginPPerf to SER nice’
‘Maria began being nice’
(49) Quando o Pedro lhe pediu ajuda, a Maria foi simpática.
‘When the Pedro her askPPerf help, the Maria SERPPerf nice’
‘When Pedro asked her help, Maria was nice’
(50) O Pedro pediu ajuda. A Maria foi simpática e emprestou-lhe dinheiro. 6
‘The Pedro askPPerf help. The Maria SERPPerf nice and lendPPerf him
money’
‘Pedro asked her help. Maria was nice and lent to him some money’
An essentially temporal opposition, such as the one between stage-level and
individual-level predicates, is not sufficient, by itself, to provide adequate answers to
the different questions raised by the above examples. A reclassification of stative
predications, which explicitly takes into account the role played by aspectual properties,
seems to be needed in these cases.
6
Note that the relevant reading associated with examples like these is the exclusively temporal one; we
will ignore, thus, other interpretations, such as the causal one, which require a differentiated treatment (cf.
the proposals developed by Lascarides and Asher (1993)).
In the following section, we will investigate a hypothesis that, we think, will
shed some light on the intriguing process-like behaviour of an important set of states.
3. Phase vs. Non-Phase States
It is very interesting to point out that, in appropriate contexts, some statives
behave like events, i.e. they follow the pattern that is traditionally invoked in the
literature to characterise the aspectual class of processes. Thus, we observe that those
states, like event situations, occur unproblematically with aspectual operators that select
an eventive or processual “input” – it is, for instance, the case of the Progressive or of
começar a (‘begin’) – and allow a successive reading in the context of when-clauses and
linear ordered discourses (cf. Dowty (1979), Vlach (1981), Kamp and Rohrer (1983),
among others).
In order to accommodate such unusual behaviours, Cunha (1998)-(2004)
proposes the inclusion of the idea of “phaseability” in the general conception of stative
predications: due to the possibility of integration in the Aspectual Network proposed by
Moens (1987), some states, which were labelled phase-states, can be coerced into
processes, incorporating, in this way, the feature [+dynamic], which, typically,
identifies the different kinds of events.
It is important to point out that the inclusion in the Aspectual Network – and,
consequently, the coercion into events – is restricted to a limited number of statives,
those we labelled phase-states, not being available for all the elements of this set of
eventualities. Those states that cannot integrate the Aspectual Network, being, thus,
prevented from acquiring eventive characteristics, will be called non-phase states.
Taking into account the above discussion, we postulate the existence of another
property underlying the class of statives: phaseability. Phase-states will be those states
that can integrate the Aspectual Network and thus reveal an event-like behaviour, in that
they are coerced into processes; non-phase states, in contrast, have not this property,
behaving always and consistently as stative situations, independently of their context of
occurrence.
The criteria we suggest in order to distinguish these two subclasses of states are
the following:
A. Only non-phase statives are completely incompatible with aspectual operators
requiring a dynamic input, such as the Progressive or começar a (‘begin’) (cf.
(51)-(52) vs. (53)-(54)):
(51) A Rita está a viver na Holanda. (phase-state)
‘The Rita ESTARPres to live in the Netherlands’
‘Rita is living in the Netherlands’
(52) O meu cão começou a ser agressivo. (phase-state)
‘The my dog beginPPerf to SER aggressive’
‘My dog started being aggressive’
(53) * O João está a ter olhos azuis. (non-phase state)
‘The João ESTARPres to have eyes blue’
‘João is having blue eyes’
(54) * O meu casaco começou a ser verde. (non-phase state)
‘The my coat beginPPerf to SER green’
‘My coat began being green’
B. Only non-phase states are completely impossible, in the Pretérito Perfeito tense,
occurring in the main clauses of temporal constructions introduced by quando
(‘when’) with a preferential successive reading (cf. (55)-(56) vs. (57)-(58)):
(55) Quando saiu de Portugal, a Rita viveu na Holanda. (phase-state)
‘When leavePPerf from Portugal, the Rita livePPerf in the Netherlands’
‘When she left Portugal, Rita lived in the Netherlands’
(56) Quando encontrou o ladrão, o meu cão foi agressivo. (phase-state)
‘When findPPerf the thief, the my dog SERPPerf aggressive’
‘When it found the thief, my dog was aggressive’
(57) * Quando chegou à escola, o João teve olhos azuis. (non-phase state)
‘When arrivePPerf to the school, the João havePPerf eyes blue’
‘When he arrived at school, João had blue eyes’
(58) * Quando eu o vesti, o meu casaco foi verde. (non-phase state)
‘When I it dressPPerf, the my coat SERPPerf green’
‘When I dressed it, my coat was green’
C. Only non-phase statives, in the Pretérito Perfeito tense, cannot be admitted in
sequences of linearly ordered discourses exhibiting a successive reading (cf.
(59)-(60) vs. (61)-(62)): 7
(59) A Rita casou-se com o João. Viveu na Holanda durante dois anos. (phase
state)
‘The Rita marryPPerf herself with the João. LivePPerf in the Netherlands for
two years’
‘Rita married João. She lived in the Netherlands for two years’
(60) Eu levei o meu cão ao veterinário. Ele foi agressivo e mordeu-lhe a mão.
(phase-state)
‘I takePPerf the my dog at the doctor. It SERPPerf aggressive and bitPPerf
his hand’
‘I took my dog to the doctor. It was aggressive and it bit his hand’
(61) * O João chegou à escola. Teve olhos azuis. (non-phase state)
‘The João arrivePPerf at the school. HavePPerf eyes blue’
‘João arrived at school. He had blue eyes’
(62) * Eu vesti o meu casaco. Ele foi verde. (non-phase state)
‘I dressPPerf the my coat. It SERPPerf green’
‘I dressed my coat. It was/has been green’
D. Only non-phase statives lead to semantic anomaly when they are combined with
expressions that convey habituality (cf. (63)-(64) vs. (65)-(66)):
(63) A Rita vive habitualmente na Holanda. (phase-state)
‘The Rita livePres usually in the Netherlands’
'Rita lives usually in the Netherlands'
(64) O meu cão é habitualmente agressivo. (phase-state)
‘The my dog SERPres usually aggressive’
'My dog is usually aggressive'
(65) * O João tem habitualmente olhos azuis. (non-phase state)
‘The João havePres usually eyes blue’
7
Note that the use of the Imperfeito tense, leading to the reading in which the state includes the event, is
perfectly acceptable with both phase and non-phase states.
'João has usually blue eyes'
(66) * Este casaco é habitualmente verde. (non-phase state)8
‘This coat SERPres usually green’
'This coat is usually green'
As we have just said, the linguistic criteria that identify phase-states correspond,
in some extent, to those describing the behaviour exhibited by events in general and, in
particular, by processes. The following sentences, involving the above-mentioned
aspectual class, confirm our assumption:
(67) A Maria está / começou a chorar.
‘The Maria ESTARPres / beginPPerf to cry’
‘Maria is / began crying’
(68) Quando o pai a deixou na escola, a Maria chorou.
‘When the father her leavePPerf in the school, the Maria cryPPerf’
‘When his father left her at school, Maria cried’
(69) O Pedro insultou a Maria. Ela chorou.
‘The Pedro insultPPerf the Maria. She cryPPerf’
‘Pedro insulted Maria. She cried’
(70) A Maria chora habitualmente / todos os dias.
‘The Maria cryPres habitually / every the days’
‘Maria cries habitually / everyday’
In view of the examples just mentioned, we may ask in which respects phasestates really differ from processes, in order to be considered true stative constructions.
Or, in other words, which linguistic criteria enable us to distinguish states from events?
We will address this problem in the following section.
8
We must stress, however, that, given the data we have analysed, it is not easy to determine if this test
applies to the distinction between phase and non-phase states or to the opposition between individuallevel and stage-level predicates. In fact, European Portuguese speakers seem to recognise this criterion for
the two possibilities mentioned and the data are not conclusive in this respect, being very difficult to
decide for one or the other of the hypotheses exploited here. We suggest, however, that the habitual
reading test can function, at least partially, as a valid criterion for the two possibilities under discussion,
in virtue that, in most of the cases, they are indissociably related.
4. States vs. Events
We have already seen that, in appropriate circumstances, there exist some states
that behave like processes. We have argued, however, that these structures are basically
stative, being their eventive behaviour the result of the application of some coercion
possibilities in the Aspectual Network that lead to their change into processes.
In order to validate this kind of analysis, however, it will be necessary to find
out some criteria that enable us to identify the class of statives in its own right,
distinguishing it clearly from events. Concerning languages like Portuguese, the tests
that seem to be operative in this respect are the following:
A. Only states, in the Presente do Indicativo tense (simple present), exhibit a
preferential reading expressing a “real present” meaning, i.e., a purely temporal
locating interpretation, although some of them, in appropriate contexts, admit
also a habitual reading (cf. (71)-(73) vs. (74)):
(71) A Maria é alta neste momento / * habitualmente. (state)
‘The Maria SERPres tall in this moment / habitually’
‘Maria is tall right now / usually’
(72) A Maria é simpática neste momento / habitualmente. (state)
‘The Maria SERPres nice in this moment / habitually’
‘Maria is nice right now / usually’
(73) A Maria está contente neste momento / (??) habitualmente. (state)
‘The Maria ESTARPres happy in this moment / habitually’
‘Maria is happy right now / usually’
(74) A Maria canta # neste momento / habitualmente. (process)
‘The Maria singPres in this moment / habitually’
‘Maria sings right now / usually’
B. Only states, in the Imperfeito tense, receive an exclusively temporal reading;
events, on the contrary, lead almost always to habitual or semi-progressive
interpretations (cf. (75)-(77) vs. (78)):
(75) Em 1999, a Maria era alta. (state)
‘In 1999, the Maria SERImp tall’
‘In 1999, Maria was tall’
(76) Em 1999, a Maria era simpática. (state)
‘In 1999, the Maria SERImp nice’
‘In 1999, Maria was nice’
(77) Em 1999, a Maria estava contente. (state)
‘In 1999, the Maria ESTARImp happy’
‘In 1999, Maria was happy’
(78) Em 1999, a Maria cantava (habitualmente / muitas vezes) (process)
‘In 1999, the Maria singImp (habitually / many times)’
‘In 1999, Maria sang (habitually / many times)’
C. Only states, embedded in subordinate sentences introduced by temporal quando
(‘when’) – even combined with the Pretérito Perfeito –, or include the events
occurring in the main sentence or lead to semantic anomaly; events, in similar
conditions, favour a successive reading (cf. (79)-(81) vs. (82)):
(79) * Quando foi alta, a Maria jogou basquetebol. (state)
‘When SERPPerf tall, the Maria playPPerf basketball’
‘When she was tall, Maria played basketball’
(80) Quando a Maria foi simpática, os seus amigos ajudaram-na. (state)
‘When the Maria SERPPerf nice, the her friends helpPPerf her’
‘When Maria was nice, her friends helped her’
(81) ? Quando esteve contente, a Maria cantou e dançou. (state)
‘When ESTARPPerf happy, the Maria singPPerf and dancePPerf’
‘When she was happy, Maria sang and danced’
(82) Quando a Maria cantou, todos a elogiaram. (process) 9
‘When the Maria singPPerf, everybody her praisePPerf’
‘When Maria sang, everybody praised her’
9
Note that, typically, while in (80) we have an inclusive reading, i.e., the period of time in which Maria
was nice precedes and, in principle, goes beyond the interval in which their friends helped her, in (82)
succession is, undoubtedly, the preferred relationship between the two clauses: all praised Maria only
after she had sung.
D. Only states (and culminations) are completely incompatible with aspectual
operators like acabar de (‘finish’) and parar de (‘stop’) (cf. (83)-(85) vs. (86)):
(83) * A Maria parou / acabou de ser alta às 5 horas. (state)
‘The Maria stopPPerf / finishPPerf from SER tall at the five hours’
‘Maria stopped / finished being tall at five o’clock’
(84) * A Maria parou / acabou de ser simpática às 5 horas. (state)
‘The Maria stopPPerf / finishPPerf from SER nice at the five hours’
‘Maria stopped / finished being nice at five o’clock’
(85) * A Maria parou / acabou de estar contente às 5 horas. (state)
‘The Maria stopPPerf / finishPPerf from ESTAR happy at the five hours’
‘Maria stopped / finished being happy at five o’clock’
(86) A Maria parou / acabou de cantar às 5 horas. (process)
‘The Maria stopPPerf / finishPPerf from sing at the five hours’
‘Maria stopped / finished singing at five o’clock’
Examples like those we have just presented support the claim that it is important
to distinguish clearly states from events. In fact, we have found linguistic characteristics
that in principle are common to all subclasses of states.
The above-mentioned criteria provide evidence that, irrespectively of the
subclass they belong to, all statives seem to share a common semantic behaviour. This
leads us to consider them as pertaining to a consistent and unique aspectual category,
that of states, although, in many respects, as we have pointed out in sections 2 and 3,
they may diverge significantly.
5. Characterizing Properties of Stative Predications
Until now, we have primarily concentrated on the linguistic behaviour exhibited
by stative predications. It is, however, also important to look at the properties that give
rise to the main dissimilarities we have found. Thus, we will briefly discuss the features
that enable us to identify the different subclasses of statives and the role they play in
their semantic characterization.
5.1.
The Subinterval Property
Traditionally, states are considered completely homogeneous eventualities. That
means that any subinterval of a given state, including all the moments constituting it,
preserves integrally its basic characterizing properties, i.e., represents a state of exactly
the same type. As a consequence, gaps are completely excluded from stative
predications.
If such claim seems to be somehow unproblematic concerning the gaps inherent
to habitual states, because, following Cunha (2004), as aspectual “perspectivizers”,
these configurations may preserve some of the properties of the basic situations with
which they are combined, it cannot be extended to sentences like the ones presented
below:
(87) A Lígia esteve triste durante todo o fim-de-semana.
‘The Lígia ESTARPPerf sad for the whole weekend’
‘Lígia was sad for the whole weekend’
(88) O Pedro esteve em casa da avó durante as férias de Natal.
‘The Pedro ESTARPPerf in home of the grandmother for the holidays of
Christmas’
‘Pedro was at his grandmother’s home for the Christmas holidays’
(89) Esteve frio durante o Inverno passado.
‘ESTARPPerf cold for the Winter before’
‘It was cold last winter’
Intuitively, it is reasonable to think that the truth value of the sentences in (87)(89) is not radically affected by the presence of some gaps along the states described:
thus, the sentence in (87) can be considered true even if there were stretches of time
included in the referred weekend in which Lígia was not sad (for instance, while she
was sleeping); similar remarks are extensive to the other examples: (88) can receive a
positive truth-value even if Pedro was not at his grandmother’s home in all the moments
constituting the period corresponding to the Christmas holidays. Likewise, the sentence
in (89) will retain its truth-value unchanged even if some of the days making up the last
winter interval were not cold ones.
Contrary to the predictions made by some influential proposals, (e.g. Vendler
(1967), Dowty (1979), Bennett and Partee (1978)), we will say that not all statives are
obligatorily true with respect to the total sum of their constitutive moments. In fact, we
have found examples in which states admit the presence of gaps along their course,
although they seem to remain true stative predications in their own right.
From the above discussion, we can conclude that the subinterval property, by
itself, is manifestly inadequate in order to identify stativity, although, as we will see, it
is an important feature concerning the characterization of some of the stative subclasses,
namely, that of individual-level states.
In connection with these problems, we must answer two fundamental questions:
1- Which properties can really be evoked in order to distinguish states from events?
2- What is, after all, the role played by the subinterval property in the domain of stative
predications?
A suitable answer for these questions requires a more close discussion about the
concept of homogeneity. It is what we will attempt in the following section of this
paper.
5.2.
Homogeneity vs. Uniformity
Taking into account that the strict temporal homogeneity cannot be invoked to
identify stativity, as we have pointed out in the last section, it is essential to determine
what properties characterize, then, the aspectual class of states, distinguishing it from all
other categories of eventualities.
We will propose that the notion of uniformity meets the adequate conditions to
describe satisfactorily the principal differences between states and events. We will, in
turn, clarify this concept, showing how it can solve the problems we are facing now.
Firstly, it is important to define, as clearly as possible, the borderline that divides
states from processes (remember that processes are those events that, concerning their
aspectual features, are more intimately related to stative predications).
Although they exhibit, until a certain limit, a relative degree of homogeneity,
processes can never be considered a homogeneous class in absolute terms, because, as
pointed out, among others, by Dowty (1979), Parsons (1990) or Smith (1991, 1999),
these events reveal, let’s say, a “molecular” internal temporal organization, that is, the
minimal portions characterizing them form a subatomic structure, beyond which their
typical properties are substantially altered. Or, in other words, processes are constructed
with minimal discrete units, beyond which homogeneity is simply impossible.
Thus, following this point of view, we will say that, for instance, walk and run
are constituted by sequences of discrete steps, swim by movements of the body in the
water, talk by vocal articulations, breath by inspirations and expirations, and even sleep
by sleeping cycles, etc.
This means that processes are obtained by the cyclic recurrence of successive
subphases. We can thus say that processes are, in essence, events, that is, dynamic
situations, showing an intrinsic phase structure leading to significant modifications of
the initial state of affairs.
States, on the other hand, are completely uniform situations, in that they do not
support any intrinsic aspectual modification. This means that, in principle, we will never
find significant alterations concerning the internal constitution of the eventualities at
issue. In this sense, we can say that the above-mentioned aspectual class points to a
certain “permanency” or “immutability” of the states of affairs it describes.
Concerning their aspectual profile, states behave, thus, as completely continuous
and uniform situations, showing no subphases or relevant subeventualities that, in any
way, could be detached from the state as a whole.
Notice that, as we have demonstrated, phase-states can be ascribed an aspectual
behaviour very close to that of processes. This could lead one to think that uniformity
does not feet the requirements to identify statives as such and, therefore, could not be
considered an adequate property to distinguish states from events.
However, as we have said before, the eventive behaviour associated with phasestates results from their previous coercion into processes. Thus, in the relevant contexts,
we are dealing with derived events and not with basic statives. This will enable us to
explain some violations of the uniformity property shown by this kind of eventualities
without being forced to give up from considering it a valid feature with respect to the
distinction between states and events.
Summing up, it seems reasonable to conclude that, although they support gaps at
their temporal structure, violating, thus, the principle of temporal homogeneity in the
strict sense of the term, states differ from events (and particularly from processes) in
that they are absolutely uniform, i.e., they do not support any differentiable subphases
along their course (although, as we have said, a number of them admits the presence of
some alterations, thanks to the coercion possibilities allowed by the Aspectual Network,
assuming, in this case, the status of derived processes).
Uniformity will be taken, therefore, as a necessary and sufficient condition for
the identification of the presence of stativity features.
Departing from the above discussion, we will propose, basically, the existence
of three different conceptions of homogeneity:
 A traditional conception, in the line of proposals like Vendler’s (1967) or
Dowty’s (1979), in which homogeneity is conceived as the possibility of
preservation of the identity and of all the properties characterizing a given
situation when it is subjected to divisibility or to cumulativity.
 An essentially temporal conception of homogeneity, in which this term denotes
the course of a situation without any alterations, including interruptions or gaps,
in all moments that constitute the interval it occupies, identifiable, in a certain
way, with the so-called subinterval property.
 A fundamentally aspectual conception of homogeneity, which we have labelled
uniformity, referring to the absence of any kind of aspectual modification along
the course of a given situation, that means, complete lack of successive phases in
the internal structure of an eventuality.
Following this line of thought, it becomes clear that, in order to characterize
adequately all the subclasses of stative predications, we must take into account, besides
the traditional wider concept of homogeneity, as presented by Vendler (1967), two
autonomous and perfectly distinct types of homogeneity: the first one, exhibiting a
strictly temporal character, is identified with the impossibility of the occurrence of gaps
in the course of an eventuality; the second one, eminently aspectual in nature, which we
have labelled uniformity, is related to the non-existence of successive phases in the
course of an eventuality, i.e. the non-existence of identifiable subeventualities in the
temporal constitution of the main situation.
The traditional concept of homogeneity is involved in the distinction between
states and processes, on the one hand, and culminated processes and culminations, on
the other. The first two kinds of situations can be subdivided (at least until a certain
limit, in the case of processes) preserving their basic characteristics, i.e., without any
modification of their identifying properties; the last two aspectual classes, in turn, loose
their defining characteristics whenever they are subdivided.
Temporal homogeneity seems to establish the division between individual-level
and stage-level states. In fact, only individual-level predicates match perfectly all the
requirements of the subinterval property, as the following examples prove:
(90) A Maria foi alta durante dez anos.
‘The Maria SERPPerf tall for ten years’
‘Maria was tall for ten years’
(91) Os meus cortinados foram brancos durante seis anos.
‘The my curtains SERPPerf white for six years’
‘My curtains were white for six years’
(92) O João foi rico durante toda a sua vida.
‘The João SERPPerf rich for whole the his life’
‘João was rich for the whole of his life’
In order for a sentence like (90) to describe a true state-of-affairs, it is necessary
that Maria has been tall for all the moments constituting the period corresponding to ten
years. Similar remarks can be extended to the other two sentences in (91) and (92): the
relevant situations must be true at all temporal stretches (including moments) that
constitute the intervals they occupy, that is, this kind of states does not allow the
presence of any gaps along its course.
Sentences like the ones in (90)-(92), containing individual-level states, contrast
with those represented in (87)-(89), which, as shown, although describing stative
situations, do not respect integrally the subinterval property. The variable in issue, here,
seems to be the opposition between individual-level and stage-level predicates: only
individual-level predicates conform to the subinterval property and, hence, may be
considered temporally homogeneous, in the strict sense of the term.
Finally, as we have tried to clarify in the present section, aspectual homogeneity,
also labelled uniformity, seems to be responsible for the distinction between states and
events, since states, unlike events, do not support subphases or subeventualities in their
internal temporal structure.
We would even suggest that, in some ways, the notions of uniformity and strict
temporal homogeneity we have described refine and elucidate Vendler’s original idea of
homogeneity, which integrates, without explicitly distinguishing them, the two concepts
just mentioned. Notice that the proposal we have made has the advantage of pointing to
a clear distinction between two different perspectives in the analysis of predications –
Tense and Aspect – enabling us to evaluate the role played by each of them in the
structure and profile of the different kinds of eventualities.
We will define the two concepts under analysis in the following way:
 Homogeneity is a strict temporal notion that refers to the impossibility of the
emergence of any gaps or interruptions along the course of the interval in which
a given situation holds.
 Uniformity is a mainly aspectual notion that refers to the complete absence of
subphases or subeventualities at the internal structure of a given situation.
The distinction we have just made is closely related to the opposition between
phase and stage, at which we will look more carefully in turn.
5.3.
Phase vs. Stage
The above discussion about the need for distinguishing a strict temporal notion
of homogeneity from an essentially aspectual one, which has been labelled uniformity,
sheds some light on the nature and relevance of the concepts of phase and stage, which
we have been using informally since the beginning of our paper. Let’s look at them
more closely now.
Taking into account the differences with respect to linguistic behaviour observed
in the domain of states, it is obvious that we must distinguish temporal factors from
aspectual ones whenever we want to provide a subclassification for situations and, in
particular, for stative predications.
We will assume that a “stage” is an essentially temporal concept (eventually
revealing now and then an aspectual flavour), which designates a limited temporal
portion of time, a simple bounded interval whose duration is perfectly defined or
established.
On the other hand, we will assume that a “phase” is a predominantly aspectual
notion (eventually associated with temporal information, even being responsible for
some temporal effects), which designates a characterizing and identifiable portion of an
eventuality, capable of producing significant changes in the course of the state-of-affairs
in which it occurs. A phase will then be a parcel that is responsible for some kind of
transformational dynamics in the course of a situation, an aspectually relevant element
in the internal structure of the situation it is involved in.
We now synthetically present the concepts of phase and stage in light of the
notions of temporal homogeneity and uniformity:
 A stage is an essentially temporal concept, which designates a perfectly
circumscribed interval of time, with well-defined boundaries. A completely
homogeneous situation has no identifiable stages.
 A phase is a predominantly aspectual concept, which designates a relevant
period of time with respect to the change of the eventuality profile it is involved
in. A completely uniform situation has no phases along its internal temporal
structure.
The concepts we have just defined play a crucial role concerning the distinctions
made along the two initial sections of this paper. Let’s look briefly at the influence
displayed by the notions of phase and stage with respect to the subclassification of
stative predications.
The behaviour exhibited by stage-level states – in particular, their ability of
occurring with locating and durational temporal adverbials, as well as the possibility of
being quantified by expressions like sempre que (‘whenever’) or todas as vezes que
(‘every time’) – reflects the fact that they are easily bound and, therefore, temporally
quantified. Aspectual properties seem to be almost irrelevant with respect to these
criteria.
In contrast, the linguistic performances associated with the property we labelled
“phaseability” are related to significant modifications at the aspectual level, changes in
the internal temporal profile of statives that lead to event-like behaviours, such as the
preferential successive readings in linear ordered sentences or in when-clauses, as well
as the co-occurrence with specific aspectual operators like the Progressive or começar a
(‘begin’), which require a dynamic eventive input (cf. Cunha (1998a,b)).
Remark finally that far from being fully unconnected constituents phases and
stages do not behave separately, independently one from the other. On the contrary, they
conjoin themselves in a mutual and dynamic interaction, being subjected to a reciprocal
and bi-directional influence. This fact will be particularly evident in the behaviour of the
different subtypes of statives, as we will try to clarify in the next section.
6. Some Arguments in Favour of the Stative Reclassification
In order to evaluate the plain adequacy of the proposals about the statives’
reclassification developed here, it is crucial to exploit some arguments that can support
such analysis. Thus, we will try to demonstrate that, at least in languages like
Portuguese, it is possible to find predications that are representative of each of the
subclasses proposed in sections 2 and 3, obtained from the articulation of the two
features responsible for the distinction between individual-level and stage-level statives,
on the one hand, and between phase and non-phase statives, on the other. We will next
discuss the complex interaction that arises between these two levels of classification.
Finally, we will apply our reclassification to an appropriate description of the opposition
between ser (‘be’) and estar (‘be’) in predicative contexts.
6.1.
The Four Subclasses of Stative Predications
Taking into account the intersection that takes place between the two kinds of
opposition proposed in sections 2 and 3 to describe states’ linguistic behaviour, we
obtain four distinct subclasses of stative predications: individual-level non-phase states;
individual-level phase states; stage-level non-phase states and stage-level phase states.
In order to evaluate the soundness of the hypothesis we have presented in this
paper it is essential to find predications that can be taken as representative of the abovementioned four classes of states.
Taking into account the appliance of the linguistic criteria exploited above, we
can conclude that it is really the case that we can find examples of the four predicted
subclasses of statives, at least in languages like Portuguese. The series of sentences that
we give in turn confirms our suppositions:
A. Individual-level non-phase states
(93) * O carro do Pedro foi espaçoso ontem / no Sábado.
‘The car of the Pedro SERPPerf large yesterday / on the Saturday’
‘Pedro’s car was large yesterday / on Saturday’
(94) * O carro do Pedro foi espaçoso na Avenida da Boavista.
‘The car of the Pedro SERPPerf large in the Avenida da Boavista’
‘Pedro’s car was large in Avenida da Boavista’
(95) * O carro do Pedro foi espaçoso às 5 da tarde.
‘The car of the Pedro SERPPerf large at the five of the evening’
‘Pedro’s car was large at five pm’
(96) * Sempre que o carro do Pedro é espaçoso, ele faz uma grande viagem.
‘Whenever the car of the Pedro SERPres large, he doPres a great trip’
‘Whenever Pedro’s car is large, he goes in a great trip’
(97) * O carro do Pedro está / começou a ser espaçoso.
‘The car of the Pedro ESTARPres / beginPPerf to SER large’
‘Pedro’s car is / began being large’
(98) * Quando o Pedro o estacionou, o seu carro foi espaçoso.
‘When the Pedro it parkPPerf, the his car SERPPerf large’
‘When Pedro parked it, his car was large’
(99) * O Pedro comprou um carro novo. (Ele) foi espaçoso.
‘The Pedro buyPPerf a car new. (It) SERPPerf large’
‘Pedro bought a new car. It was large’
(100) * O carro do Pedro é espaçoso habitualmente.
‘The car of the Pedro SERPres large habitually’
‘Pedro’s car is usually large’
B. Individual-level phase states
(101) * A Rita gostou de matemática ontem / no Sábado.
‘The Rita likePPerf DE mathematics yesterday / on the Saturday’
‘Rita liked mathematics yesterday / on Saturday’
(102) * A Rita gostou de matemática na sala 11.
‘The Rita likePPerf DE mathematics on the room 11’
‘Rita liked mathematics at room 11’
(103) * A Rita gostou de matemática às 5 da tarde.
‘The Rita likePPerf DE mathematics at the five of the evening’
‘Rita liked mathematics at five pm’
(104) * Sempre que gosta de matemática, a Rita ajuda os seus amigos.
‘Whenever that likePres DE mathematics, the Rita helpPres the her friends’
‘Whenever she likes mathematics, Rita helps her friends’
(105) A Rita está / começou a gostar de matemática.
‘The Rita ESTARPres / beginPPerf to like DE mathematics’
‘Rita is / began liking mathematics’
(106) Quando mudou de professora, a Rita gostou de matemática.
‘When changePPerf of teacher, the Rita likePPerf DE mathematics’
‘When she got a new teacher, Rita liked mathematics’
(107) A Rita fez os exames. Gostou de matemática e decidiu tirar esse curso.
‘The Rita takePPerf the tests. LikePPerf DE mathematics and decidePPerf to
do this course’
‘Rita took the tests. She liked mathematics and decided to course it’
(108) A Rita gosta de matemática habitualmente.
‘The Rita likePres DE mathematics habitually’
‘Rita usually likes mathematics’
C. Stage-level non-phase states
(109) A água do mar esteve fria ontem / no sábado.
‘The water of the sea ESTARPPerf cold yesterday / on the Saturday’
‘Sea water was cold yesterday / on Saturday’
(110) A água do mar esteve fria na Costa Ocidental / a Norte do Cabo da Roca.
‘The water of the sea ESTARPPerf cold in the Coast West / at the North of
the Cabo da Roca’
‘Sea water was cold in the West Coast / North of Cabo da Roca’
(111) A água do mar esteve fria às 5 da tarde.
‘The water of the sea ESTARPPerf cold at the five of the evening’
‘Sea water was cold at five pm’
(112) Sempre que a água do mar está fria, eu fico em casa.
‘Whenever that the water of the sea ESTARPres cold, I stayPres in home’
‘Whenever sea water is cold, I stay at home’
(113) ??/* A água do mar começou a estar fria.
‘The water of the sea beginPPerf to ESTAR cold’
‘Sea water began being cold’
(114) * Quando chegámos à praia, a água do mar esteve fria.
‘When arrivePPerf at the beach, the water of the sea ESTARPPerf cold’
‘When we arrived at the beach, sea water was cold’
(115) * Chegámos à praia. A água do mar esteve fria e fomos dar um passeio.
‘ArrivePPerf at the beach. The water of the sea ESTARPPerf cold and
getPPerf for a walk’
‘We arrived at the beach. Sea water was cold and we went for a walk’
(116) (??) A água do mar está fria habitualmente.
‘The water of the sea ESTARPres cold habitually’
‘Sea water is usually cold’
D. Stage-level phase states
(117) A Maria esteve indisposta ontem / no Sábado.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf sick yesterday / on the Saturday’
‘Maria was sick yesterday / on Saturday’
(118) A Maria esteve indisposta no centro comercial.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf sick in the center shopping’
‘Maria was sick at the shopping center’
(119) A Maria esteve indisposta às 5 da tarde.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf sick at the five of the evening’
‘Maria was sick at five pm’
(120) Sempre que está indisposta, a Maria toma uma chávena de chá.
‘Whenever that ESTARPres sick, the Maria takePres a cup of tea’
‘Whenever she is sick, Maria takes a cup of tea’
(121) A Maria começou a estar indisposta.
‘The Maria beginPPerf to ESTAR sick’
‘Maria began being sick’
(122) Quando chegou a casa, a Maria esteve indisposta.
‘When arrivePPerf at home, the Maria ESTARPPerf sick’
‘When she arrived home, Maria was sick’
(123) A Maria comeu dois quilos de lagosta. Esteve indisposta e foi levada para
o hospital.
‘The Maria eatPPerf two kilos of lobster. ESTARPPerf sick and was taken to
the hospital’
‘Maria ate two kilos of lobster. She was sick and she was taken to hospital’
(124) A Maria está indisposta habitualmente.
‘The Maria ESTARPres sick habitually’
‘Maria is usually sick’
The different patterns we have just presented suggest – at least with respect to
languages like Portuguese – the viability of each of the four subclasses of statives
hypothesised above, resulting from the interaction exhibited by the main properties
discussed in sections 2 and 3. Thus, we must admit that the distinction between stagelevel and individual-level states, on the one hand, and the opposition between phase and
non-phase states, on the other, must be thought as perfectly separate properties, acting
independently one from the other.
This does not mean, however, that there are no interferences or reciprocal
interdependencies between the two characteristics under analysis. In fact, they interact
in a very complex way, revealing an unquestionably mutual influence.
One of the most evident interactions that arise between these two features is
related with the fact that phase states can be coerced into processes. Given that in
principle events are “transitory” or “episodic” situations, describing well-limited
properties or relationships, they must be normally integrated in the class of stage-level
predicates (cf. Carlson (1977), Kratzer (1995)). This means that a basic individual-level
stative when coerced into a process can, in appropriate contexts, exhibit the typical
characteristics of this kind of situation, that is, it behaves in some ways as an event, and,
therefore, as a (derived) stage-level predicate.
As we will see in turn, these remarks will be of great relevance when we set up a
proposal that encodes an adequate treatment for the opposition between ser (‘be’) and
estar (‘be’) in predicative constructions. In this way, we will try to demonstrate that the
subclassification developed here matches satisfactorily with an appropriate description
of the phenomenon in issue.
Finally, it is important to stress that the distinctions we have made do not arise
in a bipolarised way. In the contrary, they seem to behave as gradual properties. This
means that we can easily find statives whose linguistic behaviour alternates between the
characterising pattern of individual-level predicates and that of stage-level predicates
(cf. (125)-(128)). Similarly, we have states that, at the same time, share properties of
non-phase and phase statives (cf. (129)-(132)):
(125) A Maria esteve casada durante dois anos / ?? ontem / ?? na segunda-feira.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf married for two years / yesterday / on the Monday’
‘Maria was married for two years / yesterday / on Monday’
(126) A Maria esteve casada na Holanda / * em casa dos primos.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf married in the Netherlands / in the home of the
cousins’
‘Maria was married in the Netherlands / at her cousins’ home’
(127) * A Maria esteve casada às 5 da tarde.
‘The Maria ESTARPPerf married at the five of the evening’
‘Maria was married at five pm’
(128) * Sempre que está casada, a Maria compra uma casa nova.
‘Whenever that ESTARPres married, the Maria buyPres a house new’
‘Whenever she is married, Maria buys a new house’
(129) * O Zé está a querer um gelado e um bolo.
‘The Zé ESTARPres to want an ice-cream and a cake’
‘Zé is wanting an ice-cream and a cake’
(130) * O Zé começou a querer um gelado e um bolo.
‘The Zé beginPPerf to want an ice-cream and a cake’
‘Zé began wanting an ice-cream and a cake’
(131) Quando entrou no café, o Zé quis um gelado e um bolo.
‘When enterPPerf in the coffee shop, the Zé wantPPerf an ice-cream and a cake’
‘When he entered the coffee shop, Zé wanted an ice-cream and a cake’
(132) O Zé entrou no café. Quis um gelado e um bolo.
‘The Zé enterPPerf in the coffee shop. WantPPerf an ice-cream and a cake’
‘Zé entered the coffee shop. He wanted an ice-cream and a cake’
6.2.
Ser (‘be’) vs. Estar (‘be’)
Linguists such as Mateus et al. (1989) support the idea that the distinction
between ser (‘be’) and estar (‘be’), in the predicative context, can be seen as the reflex
of the most general opposition between individual-level and stage-level predicates. In
this view, structures involving ser (‘be’) would be individual-level and structures
involving estar (‘be’) would be stage-level.
This kind of analysis seems, at first glance, very interesting, since it enables us
to account for the fact that constructions integrating ser (‘be’) express stable properties,
contrasting with constructions involving estar (‘be’), which point preferentially to
episodic situations (cf. (133)-(134) vs. (135)-(136)):
(133) A minha casa é fria.
‘The my house SERPres cold’
‘My house is cold’
(134) A Maria é loura.
‘The Maria SERPres blond’
‘Maria is blond’
(135) A minha casa está fria.
‘The my house ESTARPres cold’
‘My house is cold’
(136) A Maria está loura.
‘The Maria ESTARPres blond’
‘Maria is blond’
This proposal faces, however, some puzzles that are not easy to solve. Taking
into account the different criteria pointed in section 2, we notice that the following
examples, although involving ser (‘be’) in their structure, behave like stage-level
predicates:
(137) O meu cão foi agressivo ontem / no Sábado.
‘The my dog SERPPerf aggressive yestarday / on the Saturday’
‘My dog was aggressive yesterday / on Saturday’
(138) O meu cão foi agressivo no consultório do veterinário.
‘The my dog SERPPerf aggressive in the room of the doctor’
‘My dog was aggressive at the doctor’s room’
(139) O meu cão foi agressivo às 5 da tarde.
‘The my dog SERPPerf aggressive at the five of the evening’
‘My dog was aggressive at five pm’
(140) Sempre que o meu cão é agressivo, eu prendo-o na cozinha.
‘Whenever that the my dog SERPres aggressive, I shutPres it in the kitchen’
‘Whenever my dog is aggressive, I shut it in the kitchen’
The simple adoption of the individual-level vs. stage-level opposition seems to
be insufficient in order to account for such examples. Let’s explain why this is so.
If we assume that a sentence like “O meu cão é agressivo” (‘My dog serPres
aggressive’) expresses a stage-level state, we will be saying, counter-intuitively, that it
is, in a certain way, totally equivalent to a sentence like “O meu cão está agressivo”
(‘My dog estarPres aggressive’). However, Portuguese speakers give to those sentences
quite different interpretations: the first one expresses a stable property, while the last
one conveys preferably an episodic property.
If, on the other hand, we think of the above-mentioned sentence as expressing an
individual-level predicate, we will not be able to explain the behaviour illustrated by the
sentences in (137)-(140), which, as we have said, conforms to the stage-level property.
However, if we take seriously into account the interactions that arise between
the two classifying parameters applying to stative predications we have discussed along
this paper, we will find an elegant solution to this problem.
Note, firstly, that the state represented in a sentence like “O meu cão é
agressivo” (‘My dog serPres aggressive’) can be easily coerced into a process, i.e., it is
a phase state, as the application of the relevant tests confirms:
(141) O meu cão está / começou a ser agressivo.
‘The my dog ESTARPres / beginPPerf to SER aggressive’
‘My dog is / began being aggressive’
(142) Quando os meus amigos entraram em casa, o meu cão foi agressivo.
‘When the my friends enterPPerf in home, the my dog SERPPerf aggressive’
‘When my friends came in the house, my dog was aggressive’
(143) O carteiro entrou no jardim. O meu cão foi agressivo e mordeu-o.
‘The postman comePPerf into the garden. The my dog SERPPerf aggressive
and bitPPerf him’
‘The postman came into the garden. My dog was aggressive and bit him’
(144) O meu cão é agressivo habitualmente / todos os dias.
‘The my dog SERPres aggressive habitually / every the days’
‘My dog is usually / every day aggressive’
Departing from the investigation we have pursued in the above sections, we will
provide a tentative explanation for the problems posed by examples like (137)-(140).
Taking into account that phase states can assume the typical characteristics of
events and that these situations, by themselves, are stage-level predicates, we will
propose that it is the “phaseability” inherent to sentences like the ones in (137)-(140) –
and not the fact that they describe originally stage-level predicates – the principal
responsible for their unexpected behaviour.
Our hypothesis makes possible, on the one hand, to maintain the proposal
adopted by Mateus et al. (1989) that says that all predicative constructions involving ser
(‘be’) correspond, originally, to individual-level predicates, thus enabling us to describe
the speakers’ intuitions subjacent to the opposition between sentences like “O meu cão é
agressivo” (‘My dog serPres aggressive’), describing stable properties, and sentences
like “O meu cão está agressivo” (‘My dog estarPres aggressive’), describing episodic
properties; and, on the other hand, it solves the problem of the stage-level like
behaviour of some of the sentences involving ser (‘be’), due to the assumption of their
previous coercion into processes, making available the emergence of a linguistic derived
behaviour in some ways similar to that of stage-level predicates.
7. Conclusion
The predications traditionally conceived of as being stative situations do not
constitute a homogeneous aspectual class. In fact, as we have seen, their linguistic
behaviour varies significantly. This leads us to consider the requirement of establishing
subclasses within the domain of the above-mentioned category.
We tried to prove that the distinctions between individual-level and stage-level
predicates, on the one hand, and between non-phase and phase states, on the other, – the
first predominantly temporal, the second eminently aspectual – are the two main
properties that set up an adequate subclassification for stative predications.
We have also seen that the notions of phase and stage play an important role
with respect to stativity, since they enable us to describe appropriately a great number of
divergences observed within the different kinds of stative predications. Namely, these
two concepts helped us to explain the patterns of occurrence exhibited by ser (‘be’) and
estar (‘be’) in predicative contexts in languages like Portuguese.
Finally, we argued in favour of the idea that, although their internal diversity,
statives constitute a relevant aspectual class. In fact, we found several important criteria
that explicitly identify states, distinguishing them from all the other types of situations,
thus unequivocally supporting the traditional opposition between states and events.
8. Bibliographical References
BENNETT, M., and B. PARTEE (1978) Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in
English, Indiana, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
CARLSON, G., (1977) “A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural” in Linguistics
and Philosophy, Vol. 1: pp. 413-456.
CHIERCHIA, G., (1995) “Individual-Level Predicates as Inherent Generics” in G.
Carlson e F. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, Chicago, the University of
Chicago Press: pp. 176-223.
CUNHA, L. F., (1998) As Construções com Progressivo no Português: uma Abordagem
Semântica, MA Dissertation, Oporto, F.L.U.P..
CUNHA, L. F., (2004) Semântica das Predicações Estativas: para uma Caracterização
Aspectual dos Estados, PHD Dissertation, Oporto, F.L.U.P..
DOWTY, D., (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht, Reidel Publ.
Comp..
KAMP, H., and U. REYLE (1993) From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to
Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse
Representation Theory, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
KAMP, H., and C. ROHRER (1983) “Tense in Texts” in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze e A.
von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Berlin,
Walter de Gruyter: pp. 250-269.
KRATZER, A., (1995) “Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates” in G. Carlson e
F. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, Chicago, the University of Chicago Press:
pp. 125-175.
LASCARIDES, A., and N. ASHER (1993) “Temporal Interpretation, Discourse
Relations and Commonsense Entailment” in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol.
16, Nº 5: pp. 437-493.
MATEUS, M. H., et al., (1989) Gramática da Língua Portuguesa, Lisbon, Ed.
Caminho.
MATEUS, M. H., A. BRITO, I. DUARTE, I. FARIA, S. FROTA, G. MATOS, F.
OLIVEIRA, M. VIGÁRIO, A. VILLALVA (2003) Gramática da Língua
Portuguesa, Lisbon, Editorial Caminho, 5ª Edição, revista e aumentada.
MOENS, M., (1987) Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference, PHD Dissertation,
Edinburgh.
PARSONS, T., (1990) Events in the Semantics of English: a Study in Subatomic
Semantics, Cambridge Mass., the MIT Press.
VENDLER, Z., (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy, New York, Cornell University Press.
VLACH, F., (1981) “The Semantics of the Progressive” in P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen
(eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 14: Tense and Aspect, New York, Academic
Press: pp. 271-292.